Literary Fiction by People of Color discussion

hello everyone! today we start discussing dinaw mengestu's All Our Names. this group has already discussed another one of dinaw mengestu's books, his first one, The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears (link to discussion).

the two books could not be more different, it seems to me, but of course it will be very nice and interesting to see what you all think.

this is the new york times review of All Our Names. if you haven't read the book i suggest that you look at it with squinty eyes, because there is a lot in the book that is mysterious and surprising, and it's easy to have the book ruined by a spoiler.

dinaw mengestu was born in ethiopia but moved with his family to peoria, IL, when he was 2 years old. two years ago he received a macarthur fellowship, also knows as "genius grant." what makes the macarthur fellowship special is that it's a vast sum of money ($625,000) that is given to people who, according to the foundation, "show exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work" with absolutely no strings attached.

All Our Names deals, among other things, with the post-independence rise of idi amin in uganda (uganda was a british colony which gained independence in 1962; for a very brief history of uganda see here). in 2012 mengestu wrote an article on uganda.

i hope you enjoy this fine book by one of the most promising young authors writing in english today!

jo wrote: "hello everyone! today we start discussing dinaw mengestu's All Our Names. this group has already discussed another one of dinaw mengestu's books, his first one, [book:The Beautiful ..."

Great introduction!

LOL - I so agree with your NYT comment I do not read the reviews until I have finished with the book. Ok - sometimes I peek at the first and last paragraph which does not reveal much.

I have the book and will start reading tonight.

excellent. it's a short book but there's LOTS to talk about. so maybe we can start talking about the first couple of chapters in a day or two. given the nature of this novel, i think every chapter has a little bit to talk about, and many questions!

Just started reading it.

mina: no kittens, no puppies. you are warned. :)

jo, I really did enjoy this fine book. The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears is my favorite of his books. It's like one of the five best books I've read with this group. I didn't care for How to Read the Air at all really. But, he redeemed himself in my opinion with this book. It's so rich and very different certainly, as you mentioned, than the other two. Having never read anything fiction/non-fiction about Uganda before, I would've liked more history or info on the country, but that's not a giant complaint. The writing and this story makes up for it.

His essays and the short stories he submitted to the New Yorker magazine have all been really good, too. Nice that the current New York Times article about the new wave of African writers mentioned him as well.

do you still have the book, columbus? i think there are a lot of things in this book that are left unsaid (you pointed out one!) and this is the part that is most intriguing to me. would you and others like if we went chapter by chapter? we could start in a day or two.

jo wrote: "do you still have the book, columbus? i think there are a lot of things in this book that are left unsaid (you pointed out one!) and this is the part that is most intriguing to me. would you and ot..."

I'm requesting the book again from the library and I'm open to whatever you decide, jo.

jo wrote: "do you still have the book, columbus? i think there are a lot of things in this book that are left unsaid (you pointed out one!) and this is the part that is most intriguing to me. would you and ot..."

"Intriguing", is an excellent word choice. At first I thought, "What the.....," but then I reconsidered and thought go with it. I am loving it.

i'm glad you agree, jean! i felt i was kept off balance the whole book through.

Being off-balance is what makes it intriguing,Yes? It's not so far off-kilter that it frustrates. As you said, "It intrigues."

Jean wrote: "jo wrote: "do you still have the book, columbus? i think there are a lot of things in this book that are left unsaid (you pointed out one!) and this is the part that is most intriguing to me. would..."

Oh goodness, that was the same way I felt when reading this book and it made it all the more enjoyable. I kept thinking, Dinaw what are you trying to do to me? Where are you going with this? As I devoured this story. Intriguing is perfect!

I was able to start the book last night, but did not get as far as I wanted. (I will admit I am a World Cup junkie :)).

Like Columbus I enjoyed his debut novel The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears and less so How to Read the Air.

Even at the beginning I am feeling makes me feel like what I enjoyed about The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears. One of the things I liked about the first book was when the friends played the "dictatorship" game. Once again in this book I am seeing the theme of dictatorship and effects on people and country.

No World Cup games today so I should get some more reading done.

Columbus wrote: "jo, I really did enjoy this fine book. The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears is my favorite of his books. It's like one of the five best books I've read with this group. I didn't car..."

I agree with your assessment of his two previous books. I did not know he had published some short stories in The New Yorker. I will definitely seek those out now. Thanks!

jo wrote: "do you still have the book, columbus? i think there are a lot of things in this book that are left unsaid (you pointed out one!) and this is the part that is most intriguing to me. would you and ot..."

hmm I think this leaving things unsaid is what kept me reading but at the end it left me feeling unsatisfied with the book.

okay, let's get started here with all the things unsaid, and maybe figure out if there is value in this not-being-said or, as nina perhaps suggests, not so much.

at the beginning our anonymous narrator tells that he moved into the capital. he could have said uganda's capital but he doesn't. it names uganda and then kampala with some reluctance, and he doesn't tell us what country he is coming from (we learn it only later, though, knowing the author, we suspect it might be ethiopia). he specifically says:

On the bus ride to the capital I gave up all the names my parents had given me... I shed those names just as our bus crossed the border into Uganda... I knew Kampala was close, but even then I already already committed myself to thinking of it only as "the capital." Kampala was too small for what I imagined. that city belonged to Uganda, but that capital, as long as it was nameless, had no such allegiances. Like me, it belonged to no one, and anyone could claim it.

of course the book is called All Our Names so this business of naming and belonging and shedding names etc. is quite a big deal.

How do you take the first statement quoted above, that the narrator "gave up all the names my parents had given me?" is he referring only to his own names (which we later learn are quite a few, but we don't know yet) or is he referring to all the names he was taught, including uganda and kampala etc? and why does he want to be nameless? of course we don't know yet, but what impression do we get from this beginning?

I am a little past 1/3 of the book - past part 1 and at the beginning of part 2.

First off - I find it interesting that we learn about "Issac" through an unnamed narrator and Helen. I do not know if later in the book if "Issac" gets to tell his pov (narrate). This is the second book this year that used this technique where the main character does not tell his story but several other characters do - each having a different relationship with him and the storyline alternating narrators. (Maybe I read more using this technique but these are the ones that standout to be.

I find this technique interesting as unnamed narrator and Helen are seeing Issac through their own lenses/experiences/expectations.

I also suspect that the unnamed narrator was from Ethiopia - there were a couple of references so far - don't remember all off the top of my head.

I also thought that the author once he stated Uganda did not mention more specifically as he wanted to make his an "universal" story. The pattern of the gathering around a university setting, the excitement of freedom and the gathering of the various people with differing approaches to move the "new country forward", the military presence, the suppression/shutting up of the discussion at universities, etc could have been just about any other country in Africa (actually this applies to other countries around the world).

One way to move forward without the "burdens" of the past is to shred your old names. Get a new name that defines your viewpoint and your role in the new future.

Names often carry heavy burdens - and there are expectations associated with them - both good and bad.

The unnamed narrator gives the book a mysterious/mystery feel to it but not only that it challenged me because I had the impression that not only was the narrator anonymous but I felt we might have a case of an unreliable narrator as well.

And again, we don't know in the beginning why he chooses to be nameless and then you have the secrecy with the cities and country and so that gives the book a mystery feel as well. Somewhat perplexing and you're forced to pay attention or you might miss something.

I think the mysteriousness, the nameless narrator and the two different viewpoints forces you to pay attention and to constantly re-evaluate where the story is going. Then when you get to the end, you just want to start it all over again.

How do you take the first statement quoted above, that the narrator "gave up all the names my parents had given me?" is he referring only to his own names (which we later learn are quite a few, but we don't know yet) or is he referring to all the names he was taught, including uganda and kampala etc? and why does he want to be nameless? of course we don't know yet, but what impression do we get from this beginning?

I think that first line that you are referring to is about his name only. I do think he is trying to draw a parallel between giving up his name and seeing Kampala as "the Capital"
I think choosing namelessness is, like Beverly has said, about relieving a burden. He is in a new place. At a time when the nation is new and can become anything, so can he.

Speaking of the narrator(s), the device used of having alternating, overlapping chapters/narrators throughout the entire book really worked in my opinion - and it doesn't always. Or, I usually end up enjoying a lot more of one than the other, but I enjoyed Isaac and Helen both equally well.

Columbus wrote: "Speaking of the narrator(s), the device used of having alternating, overlapping chapters/narrators throughout the entire book really worked in my opinion - and it doesn't always. Or, I usually end ..."

Yes, I also thought it worked well.
I also liked how Helen's was in the present and Issac's was the years before the present. I think that way we see the issues of identity and race from different povs from different places.

I was bothered by Helen. So much so that she's the reason I didn't finish the book. She had a way of making everything about her. But I don't even do well with needy people or people who like to "play the victim" in real life.

When the narrator speaks of shedding his names, I immediately assumed it was because he wanted a new or fresh start and subsequently thought that the book would reveal why. He went to Kampala with a vulnerability that I think is expressly stated: Like me, it belonged to no one, and anyone could claim it. So I don't think it was odd that he clung to what's-his-name even though he didn't quite know what to make of him. I did enjoy his narration and was tempted to only read his chapters but decided that that's no way to read a book. So I ditched it just over half way through.

hi guys, these are really fantastic comments. wow. to beverly 's awesome observations:

First off - I find it interesting that we learn about "Issac" through an unnamed narrator and Helen.

this is hard to say anything about bc things change a little bit later in the novel, but you are so right about isaac and about the narrator as well, and maybe about helen too? it seems as if people don't much talk about themselves but about others. like they are trying to crack the other person's mystery or something. i love that you pointed this out.

The pattern of the gathering around a university setting, the excitement of freedom and the gathering of the various people with differing approaches to move the "new country forward", the military presence, the suppression/shutting up of the discussion at universities, etc could have been just about any other country in Africa (actually this applies to other countries around the world).

yes, yes, yes. i agree totally. but does it work? i am not sure i *liked* it. the story becomes a little kafkaesque, a sort of parable about power and insurrection and maybe doom. maybe it's my love of realist fiction that distances me here. anyone else felt this way? in fact, this is the first time i can put into focus what makes me uneasy about this novel: that it is a sort of parable, kind of like Radiance of Tomorrow, which we recently read. i wonder how you guys feel about these style of writing, especially in the african context, and if anyone else noticed a certain similarity with kafka.

One way to move forward without the "burdens" of the past is to shred your old names. Get a new name that defines your viewpoint and your role in the new future.

Names often carry heavy burdens - and there are expectations associated with them - both good and bad.

yes, but this too makes the novel a bit strange, removed, surreal. there's a sense of distance. we feel all along like we don't really know these people, like they are a big puzzle, like the story is so much bigger than we are. and this is exactly what columbus says:

he unnamed narrator gives the book a mysterious/mystery feel to it but not only that it challenged me because I had the impression that not only was the narrator anonymous but I felt we might have a case of an unreliable narrator as well.

And again, we don't know in the beginning why he chooses to be nameless and then you have the secrecy with the cities and country and so that gives the book a mystery feel as well. Somewhat perplexing and you're forced to pay attention or you might miss something.

i love that you bring up the unreliability of the narrator. how can we truly believe someone we know nothing about? but yeah, you nail the mystery element entirely, in my opinion.

louise :

I think the mysteriousness, the nameless narrator and the two different viewpoints forces you to pay attention and to constantly re-evaluate where the story is going. Then when you get to the end, you just want to start it all over again.

hahahahha, i stopped 20 pages short of the end for that very reason. so i still don't know how it ends! did you find this being kept off balance enjoyable? did it work for you?

wow, shannon , your reaction to helen is so intense? anyone else felt that way about her?

Yes, Helen's narration was also a turn-off for me - especially in the beginning. What pushed me forward was that the narrators alternated telling their story.

But, as I read on I saw her importance to what the author wanted to say - especially about discrimination, identity, and being invisible.
I do not want to say more now - as others are just beginning to read.

But even though I understand her role, does not mean that I stopped rolling my eyes at Helen and her behavior.

Jo -

I do agree with you.

yes, yes, yes. i agree totally. but does it work? i am not sure i *liked* it. the story becomes a little kafkaesque, a sort of parable about power and insurrection and maybe doom. maybe it's my love of realist fiction that distances me here. anyone else felt this way?

I will admit that after about reading 50 pages I "hurried" up and finishing reading as I just wanted to be over the book.

I understood the book but did not "like" it.

I too am a fan of "realist" fiction.
I will preface what I am going to say next with I am not a sexist person but I have found over the years that it is often male authors that write at a "big picture" level and often female authors that write at a more "everyday picture" level. And I do not mind that the "big picture" but I do need some "everyday" stuff.

One thing that annoyed me throughout the book was how did "Professor" has any money to even buy a cup of tea or food???

Who do you think is the audience for this book?

yes, how our narrator manages to pay for anything is another of the unsolved mysteries of this novel! we can discuss whether mysteries such as this (trivial? what can possibly be the reason why we are not told?) strengthen or weaken the story.

so, this is how our narrator and isaac meet:

We acknowledged each other with a quick nod of the head. Neither of us could have done more without alarming the other... Once the crowd had thinned Isaac made his move... I felt hunted. I thought, "He's coming for me," and thought I knew there was no physical injury at stake, I was right in assuming there was something at risk.

why is the narrator afraid of isaac? and why is isaac presumably afraid of the narrator? what is there at risk? do you find that the whole book is permeated by anxiety, fear, distrust, alarm, even in situations where alarm is quite incomprehensible to the reader?

I don't find the alarm in this book incomprehensible at all. This as a point in history whr alar and distrust were the only sane reactions to have in Uganda. It was a frightening time.

Just started part 2 of the story and so far the dominant theme seems to be the things all of the three main characters seem to be hiding from each other. What is the unnamed Ethiopian narrator doing in Uganda without friends or family or any visible means of support? Why an dhow does Issac disappear so frequently only to reappear with money and fresh cloths after supposedly being so destitute? Whats the deal with Helen? so needy that she immediately begins a sexual relationship with a man she knows nothing about? So mysterious as others have said...I suppose the need to know more...the tension and feeling that another shoe will soon drop is what is keeping the pages turning for me...

Yes, yes, yes Helen is a rather needy person and she's really not that likable either. Early on you feel a shadiness or (here's that word again) mystery surrounding her. If I'm comparing white women in Mengetsu's books I would take Judith the more thoughtful and engaging woman in his first book The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears over Helen any day. But, does it really matter? I mean do you really base whether you like a book on whether a character is likable or not? I'm reading a book now where the protagonist is a miserable, snarky old hoot but the character and book is so enjoyable not in spite of but because of that. Some of my favorite books have protagonist or narrators that are evil. I read several reviews recently from readers where a female sociopath was molesting young boys and all the reviews described how awful this book was because of this repugnant character. But, if you read deeper into the reviews there were signs that the reviewers actually thought the writing and story were exceptionally done but they could not get past this character.

There was much hoopla over something like this recently with the author Claire Messud about her book The Woman Upstairs - a good book in fact - where the character Nora Eldridge is an angry woman. But, many readers, mostly women in fact, had issues with the book because of this "angry" protagonist. Should one be writing likable characters or characters that come alive? Is this gender-specific as it related to those reading these books and then the authors who may feel obligated to write books to appease these readers?

Ugh, Helen, see what you started?!

Columbus wrote: "Yes, yes, yes Helen is a rather needy person and she's really not that likable either. Early on you feel a shadiness or (here's that word again) mystery surrounding her. If I'm comparing white wome..."

I do not have to "like" the characters or even agree with the character's actions/motives to be captivated by a book.

As I mentioned I saw the person that Helen was needed to play in this story. But still she irked me - especially as the only major female character in the story. She was just "dry" to me.

I just finished a book where the narrator is the dead baby of the main character - her mother who slit the baby's throat and then buried it. But the author was able to make be empathize with this woman through her writing.

Maybe "likable" is not the right word when looking to say whether you like a book or not - I guess I would say the character has be engaging to me. And Helen was not engaging enough to me.

Did I like the book - that is different question. :)

In addition to Helen's unsympathetic character, I didn't feel the love between her and Isaac; it seemed totally devoid of any emotion. But then again, we only get her side of it. I would have liked to hear Isaac's side of that story. It might have had more depth through his eyes, or maybe not.

Wilhelmina wrote: "I don't find the alarm in this book incomprehensible at all. This as a point in history whr alar and distrust were the only sane reactions to have in Uganda. It was a frightening time."

Yes, I agree and thought it was a natural response. It was probably obvious that the narrator was an outside and Issac needed to figure out who this outsider was. Issac was a manipulator in some ways and naive in others - but did know that he wanted to help implement change - and was the narrator someone who could help him in this goal or was the narrator someone who could hinder this goal.

But at this point Issac is also an outsider as he does not belong to the "in crowd" at this point.

The way this was written did provide the tension that helped the story to move forward.

Louise wrote: "In addition to Helen's unsympathetic character, I didn't feel the love between her and Isaac; it seemed totally devoid of any emotion. But then again, we only get her side of it. I would have liked..."

Yes, no passion between them.
The narrator seemed to be without a plan - he arrived at the university because he knew he did not want to do what his father and generations before he did - farm the same plot of land. He wanted to be a writer go to the university.

(view spoiler)[Yet, after that it seems his life is "guided" by Issac - who at times "rescued" him.
It was Issac who provided the means to get to the US since Issac was not going to go leave the fight in Uganda.
Once in US - Helen provided a safety net in many ways - he saw her neediness and made it comfortable for him. (hide spoiler)]

And just wondering - why are the characters of importance in this book and The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears African men and white American women? I haven't read How to Read the Air. Is the same true in that book?

hey beverly, could i ask you to put your last comment under spoiler tags? it sort of gives away a crucial element of the plot.

i don't remember either Beautiful Things or How to Read the Air, so i can't even begin to answer your question, mina, but let me ask another question:

we just had a long discussion over the likeability of a character in Daniel Black's Perfect Peace and this character was the mother. all the examples you guys bring are of women. of course dislikeable male characters are the backbone of literature, but there is no vitriol, no anger. they are just characters. i don't think i'm saying anything new for anyone when i say that we are way harder on women, real and fictional, than we are on men. is this something we should explore?

not sure this is the place to say this, but it didn't occur to me there was anything at all wrong with helen until the first person said it on this thread. and: needy? really? why is she needy? and: are men called "needy" with the same frequency with which women are, or is it women who are typically "needy?"

Wilhelmina wrote: "And just wondering - why are the characters of importance in this book and The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears African men and white American women? I haven't read [book:How to Rea..."

As a white Canadian woman dating an African man, I say *it happens* ;-). But in How to Read the Air, the main character and his wife are both African-American. Mengestu's own wife is white I believe (Parisian) so perhaps that is why he's more comfortable writing about African men/white women relationships. Write about what you know.

well she definitely looks white.

what "happens," louise? that white western folks date black african folks? or something more than that?

jo wrote: "well she definitely looks white.

what "happens," louise? that white western folks date black african folks? or something more than that?"

Just that relationships can and do often happen between African men and white women, probably more often than the other way around for some unexplainable (to me) reason. The fact that Mengestu himself is in a mixed-race relationship would explain why he writes about it. That's all I meant.

maybe there is a perspective you can add to the discussion then. thank you for sharing that.

Of course they do - no problem. But the guy has to have some sisters, aunts, second cousins once removed, somebody female and African in his life. It just surprised me that, once again, those characters don't appear in his book.

I haven't finished the book, but I haven't found Helen to be an unsympathetic character. She just strikes me as someone who has fallen in love with someone whom she knows she does not fully understand. I think that her missteps in terms of race are not surprising considering the time period of the book.

Wilhelmina wrote: "Of course they do - no problem. But the guy has to have some sisters, aunts, second cousins once removed, somebody female and African in his life. It just surprised me that, once again, those chara..."

well, color me shocked that a male writer forgets that women exist, too.

do you guys want to discuss the helen part now? there's certainly a ton to unpack there.

jo wrote: "Wilhelmina wrote: "Of course they do - no problem. But the guy has to have some sisters, aunts, second cousins once removed, somebody female and African in his life. It just surprised me that, once..."

Yes, let's. We have to start on her sooner or later.

Some may disagree with me here, but,I think typically women are referred to as being needy/clingy more so than men. However, men can be needy as well (obviously) it's just that so many men are the polar opposite from the definition of one that when one comes along she/he decides to accept what they have which may be better than the alternative. Disagree?

If anything Mengetsu has made her complex, complicated, interesting and one open for interpretation.

jo wrote: "not sure this is the place to say this, but it didn't occur to me there was anything at all wrong with helen until the first person said it on this thread. and: needy? really? why is she needy? and: are men called "needy" with the same frequency with which women are, or is it women who are typically "needy?" "

You may not have been bothered by her as much. Some people handle certain personality types better than others. But I wanted her to go away; so that's what I made her do :-) Are men referred to as "needy?" Not as much, but I don't care for a high maintenance man either. I think each individual knows what it is about Helen that isn't sitting quite right with them. And I agree with Columbus, some may disagree but call it what you want. I'm not bothered by the semantics of it.

Helen's insistence on going to the restaurant appeared to be insensitive. While trying to prove to others about their relationship and society's prejudices she did not take into account Isaac's feelings. She was trying to teach others but in the end of that scene Isaac teaches her.

Whew! Ok, I want to defend Helen to a point but I want to be certain not to divulge too much of the story. jo, should we comment on just the first half of the book, or a third of the way through?

Shannon wrote: "jo wrote: "not sure this is the place to say this, but it didn't occur to me there was anything at all wrong with helen until the first person said it on this thread. and: needy? really? why is she..."

Agree with what you said.